India's centralised mining of sub-soil minerals is rapidly changing the forested landscapes. This recent paper by Purabi Bose, examines two interrelated questions: how do indigenous people perceive centralised mining affecting their traditional forest rights, and what are some of the community-led initiatives to address mining governance and forest policy?
Here, two aspects of the rights-based approach on the extreme continuum – Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and social movements – are used for analysing three ethnographic case studies each from India’s top three mining states, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha.
The forested landscapes are inhabited by a million ethnically diverse indigenous peoples also known as Scheduled Tribes or Adivasis, often devoid of formal recognition. The Oraon, Pando, Paudi Bhuniya, and Munda indigenous communities face the consequences of mining-induced deforestation on their livelihoods and are excluded from land-use decisions before and after extractions. The findings compare diverse forms of social movements seeking decentralized mining and community-based forest governance.
Iron-ore extraction: community protest by Paudi Bhuyan in Odisha
The Paudi Bhuyan tribe, one of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in Odisha, faces a fight for their land and livelihood. Approximately 750 acres of forestland and 250 acres of government land were noted, as the community’s traditional land as part of this village. This is yet to be formally recognised as Community Forest Rights. Rungta Mines' iron ore extraction disrupts their traditional way of life. Villagers lose access to forests for food, medicine, and cultural practices. Mining pollutes their water and air, while inadequate compensation fails to address their hardships.
Despite Panchayat’s demand for withdrawal of the resolution, the mining company over the next five years was granted land acquisition both from private and community forestland with the support of local elected politicians and government officials. There were no Free Prior and Informed Consent consultations in the village by the company or by the government authorities. Around 2015, village-level resistance against the mining company and its iron ore activities began against mining-induced deforestation, and land acquisition.
Despite protests led by women and the village head, the community faces an uphill battle. False police cases, curfews, and tactics to divide the villagers weaken their resistance. Lack of legal support and limited access to resources make it difficult to stop the mining company. This struggle highlights the urgent need for stronger tribal land rights protection and a more sustainable approach to resource extraction that prioritises the well-being of affected communities.
Bauxite extraction: resistance by Munda and Pando in Chhattisgarh
In Surguja, Chhattisgarh, the lives of the Munda and Pando communities were disrupted by Bharat Aluminium Company Limited’s (BALCO) bauxite extraction. Roughly 50 million tons of bauxite reserve exist in the Surguja district. Despite facing land dispossession, damage to homes from blasting, and the replacement of biodiverse trees with eucalyptus monoculture plantations, the villagers haven't remained silent. They have protested against these injustices.
The history of BALCO’s bauxite mining in the study area dominated by indigenous peoples (Pando, Munda, Kanwar, and Korwa) dates back to early 1990s when the study area was part of Madhya Pradesh. Protests were held against land loss, blasting damage and eucalyptus planting and to fight BALCO's illegal mining beyond permitted areas. Villagers demand fair compensation, an end to deforestation, and respect for their rights.
Although no one in the village read about Free Prior and Informed Consent guidelines nor was it conducted by the mining company, the protesters were demanding the exact values of Free Prior and Informed Consent. The protest had gathered the attention of local civil society who supported and voiced the need to first address the environmental (soil, water, and air pollution), indigenous rights violations, land and forest rights, and funding for village development.
Broken promises of jobs and inadequate compensation left villagers struggling. Despite protests against land takeover, blasting damage to homes, and eucalyptus plantations replacing wildlife-friendly trees, BALCO continues illegal mining beyond permitted areas. Villagers demand fair compensation, a stop to deforestation, and respect for their rights. In 2017, at the time of fieldwork, local protest forced contractors to terminate extraction activities and the mining company became non-functional.
Coal extraction: self-governance movement by Oraon and Mundas in Jharkhand
Coal mining threatens Oraon and Munda communities in Jharkhand's Chhatra district. Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) operates a large open-pit mine, claiming it's necessary for national development. However, wastewater from the mine pollutes water sources and destroys farmland. Oraon women led protests demanding an end to wastewater dumping. The company offered a treatment plant (not yet functional) and free drinking water (not yet delivered).
The villagers also formed the Pathalgiri movement, demanding self-governance and opposing deforestation. This movement achieved some success, like stopping tree cutting and forcing compensation for livestock accidents involving coal trucks. However, the movement faced violence and accusations of sedition, leading to fear and discouragement among villagers.
Further concerns include the lack of compensation for land degradation and a lack of awareness about the District Mineral Fund, which is supposed to support mining-affected communities. The company allegedly tries to weaken community unity by offering jobs and entertainment to non-tribal populations. While the Pathalgiri movement has stalled, the fight for clean water, fair compensation, and tribal rights continues.
Discussion
Several challenges are faced by indigenous communities in India when defending their land rights against mining projects. They face environmental injustice, bureaucratic hurdles, and manipulative tactics. Despite the fear and challenges, communities continue to resist through social movements and assert their right to self-determination over their land and resources.
Environmental injustice and fear
Indigenous communities see mining as a threat to their way of life. Deforestation destroys their livelihoods and pollutes their environment. They organise social movements to demand environmental justice and stop land acquisition. However, democratic participation is often limited, forcing communities to rely on bottom-up approaches like the Pathalgiri movement in Jharkhand. This movement faced accusations of being linked to rebel groups, creating fear among villagers. Women play a crucial role in these movements, but face the most hardship, as seen in the case of Odisha, where authorities used force to suppress their protests.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent as a bureaucratic trap?
Free, Prior and Informed Consent, a process designed to ensure indigenous consent for development projects, is often misused. Bureaucratic procedures can manipulate the process, favouring corporations and the state. The case studies highlight how Free, Prior and Informed Consent was a "bureaucratic trap", with misleading information and forced consent through curfews. Lack of legal support further disadvantages communities.
Development narratives and polarisation
Companies and authorities use development narratives to undermine social movements. They claim mining is necessary for national development and brand those who resist as anti-development or linked to insurgents. Sustainable re-development narratives falsely portray adequate rehabilitation and reforestation. These narratives ignore the impact on traditional livelihoods, water resources, and biodiversity.
They also aim to portray indigenous communities as opposed to progress, undermining their holistic understanding of nature. Polarisation tactics further weaken resistance by dividing communities based on income, religion, or work opportunities offered by mining companies. This weakens collective action and undermines indigenous knowledge systems.
Conclusion
Despite progressive laws in India, indigenous communities struggle against mining companies. National policies rarely translate into meaningful action on the ground. This clash stems from different worldviews: Indigenous communities see nature as "life-giving," while companies see it as a source of profit.
Future research should explore behind-the-scenes negotiations and corruption in the mining sector. Indigenous communities will persist in their non-violent resistance as long as land-use policies favour corporations over their rights and well-being.
Their key demand was that any mining activity without community consent disrupts ecological balance and undermines indigenous knowledge systems. They view themselves as guardians of their habitat and its resources. This paper calls for a rewrite of land-use policies with active participation from indigenous communities for truly sustainable development.
The full paper can be accessed here
/articles/price-mining-indigenous-lands